Search Results for: crew change

  • News

Big Data: Connecting and merging the dots

 

Yet, the requirements and demands put upon naval architects and shipyards can sometimes feel worlds away from the day-to-day operation of vessels. The challenge of crews having different priorities and needs from their shore-based counterparts has also been well documented. So what can be done to draw these different groups together?

Years of experience in providing both ship design software to yards and onboard performance monitoring solutions that report in real-time to shore based offices, gives NAPA an interesting umbrella perspective. We have seen how sometimes the day-to-day demands on each of these industry segments, and regulations they are working to, can pull them each in different directions. But we can also see that, on the whole, their end goal is fundamentally the same – safe, efficient and productive vessels that serve both their owner and the wider supply chain.

Increasing visibility and understanding between each of these vital functions and helping each to understand their own contribution to the whole, and how it impacts and relates to work in other sectors, will be increasingly vital as the industry evolves technologically and comes under greater environmental scrutiny. With the advent of big data, better tools to analyze it and improved systems to share it, this is quickly becoming more feasible.

Yards face increasing regulatory pressures that require internal validation as well as increased communication and data sharing with class societies. Tools and data interfaces are rapidly developing to make this a streamlined part of the vessel design process and deliver an easy shift from design terminals to construction plans for yards. But, by far the most interesting progress that data can help deliver is designing for real-world vessel performance. Until recently, yards designed vessels to meet the required sea-trial performance parameters – and sea-trial data confirming whether or not that aim was achieved was the only performance information they were provided with.

However, sea trial conditions rarely reflect those faced during real-world vessel transits and expected performance often doesn’t match with real experiences. Until now, that real world information never got back to the yard. The sea trial data was all they had to go on, so they were never able to identify these anomalies and correct them to deliver high-performance vessels for real conditions.

Performance monitoring tools have been in use for many years to collect this data for ship owners and operators. With an added layer of analysis it is now turned it into usable information for both shore-based offices and vessel crews to manage vessels in real time. More advanced performance monitoring and optimization tools like ClassNK-NAPA GREEN provide further big data analytics, combining weather, speed positioning and route data with measured vessel data to enable a true view of efficiency. It presents users with actionable information about each vessel and the fleet as a whole.

Our question was: Why could access to this data not be extended to the yard that designed and built the vessel? This is one of the things we have been trialling as we enhance and continue to build on the success of ClassNK-NAPA GREEN. With agreement from all parties, designers are being given access to efficiency data from the ships that are now in operation. This joined up approach to data sharing will help to drive the entire industry towards common goals.

That is just one example of how big data can change the way we work and how greater transparency could open up pathways for improvement across the industry. But big data—in fact any data—is only relevant when it responds to a businesses specific needs. This business intelligence can be anything a business needs to know to improve or develop its operations, but ultimately you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

Stena Line’s Energy Saving Program (ESP) has excellently demonstrated this ongoing management. Since 2005, it has been adjusting vessel operations as well as testing other efficiency solutions using data analytics to evaluate fuel-saving effectiveness and ROI. In that time Stena has adopted changes ranging from bulbous-bow removal to energy-conserving window films. With ClassNK-NAPA GREEN installed on 24 vessels for day-to-day performance optimization, the ESP has resulted in $17 million in savings to date.

Equally, even with measurement in place, sometimes it can be difficult to know what to manage if you don’t ask the right questions. That’s where ongoing storage for historical big data analysis can be incredibly beneficial. For example, one major cruise line had been collecting data with onboard performance management and optimization systems since 2006 but it was only fairly recently that they wanted to ascertain the cost-benefit relationship of waiting for late passengers.

After analysis on the waiting time and period of increased speed to the next destination held in the existing data it was discovered that the current policies were costing tens of millions of dollars every year. This resulted in a policy change across the cruise line’s business.

Sometimes it’s a combination of the two that results in the greatest benefit. Real-time measurement of current performance when compared against data benchmarks of normal vessel operation allows easy identification of underperforming systems. For example, after minutes reviewing the real-time analytics for a container vessel, Class NK-NAPA Green identified that the hull needed cleaning. Once actioned, this cleaning reduced the vessel’s monthly fuel expenditure by $60,000.

The common element to each of these examples and ways of working is big data and a willingness to share that data to reach a common goal. Whether it’s to give yards the knowledge they need to design for real-world efficiency or simply to manage vessel maintenance, effective implementation of the right questions and powerful tools that can help you answer them can have a real impact. Applied wisely, transparently and collectively, big data can better connect us and support us all in delivering a more productive, efficient and safer future for shipping.

Norwegians square up to offshore challenge

A growing number of laid-up OSVs and sweeping job cuts in Norway’s offshore sector present major challenges to the owners and operators of some of the most sophisticated offshore vessels in the world. Numbers change on a regular basis but, by mid-October, about 70 offshore vessels of various types were laid up, and more would be idle in the coming days, analysts predicted.

The Norwegian economy is, of course, heavily dependent on offshore energy but in good times, the country has been prudent with proceeds. Its sovereign wealth fund is the largest in the world. And the Norwegians are used to riding the peaks and troughs of energy prices with pragmatism. Adjusting to downturns is painful in the short run, but part of life.

Norway’s west coast offshore cluster, located around Aalesund and Fosnavåg, is home to a bunch of blue-chip names involved in every stage of servicing North Sea energy companies. According to Per Erik Dalen, Chief Executive of Campus Aalesund—an educational hub at the center of the cluster—the region is home to no fewer than 13 ship design firms, 20 ship operators and 169 equipment suppliers.

DeBeers KlevenVessels currently under construction include a deep-sea mining vessel for De Beers at Kleven Shipyard in Ulsteinvik and what ABB claims to be the most sophisticated cable layer, also contracted at Kleven, for high-voltage cable installation. Across the bay, ship design and offshore builder Ulstein has just launched the design for a new multi-function vessel specifically targeting energy firms seeking to cut CAPEX and OPEX.

The company’s S182, a shallow vessel aimed at the South East Asia, Middle East and African markets, is designed as a platform which can be adapted for a range of offshore functions including cable laying, construction, shallow-water installation, pipe- and cable-laying and dive support. Without mission equipment, the vessel is likely to cost about $45 million, less than 40% of the company’s high-end HX102 unit designed for deep water and harsh conditions.

Meanwhile, Island Offshore – another company within the cluster partly owned by Edison Chouest – lifted subjects on a contract with Kawasaki Heavy Industries earlier this year to build a Rolls-Royce-designed combined well intervention and top-hole drilling vessel capable of a range of subsea and well functions. The UT 777 vessel has DP3, ice-class and the highest level of comfort notation.

Some might question the decision to go ahead on such a vessel at this time, but Managing Director Håvard Ulstein is confident that the decision to proceed, despite the current market, is the right one.

“This vessel will be a significant contributor to our service range and to Island Offshore as a company. We have great confidence in this project,” he says. Delivery is scheduled for 2018 or 2019 by which time many analysts believe oil prices will have rebounded.

At a recent workboat conference in Abu Dhabi, Synergy Offshore’s Chief Executive Fazel Fazelbhoy went so far as to predict oil prices could bounce back far sooner than expected, perhaps even hitting $200 a barrel within the next two years. He proposed a number of arguments, including the fact that today’s 1.5 million b/d crude surplus could easily be offset by depletion rates and cutbacks in E&P spending much sooner than expected.

Campus Aalesund’s Dalen is more cautious but nevertheless positive about the outlook, pointing out that the downturn has had little impact on innovation. The offshore energy sector may be having a tough time at the moment, he concedes, but in a longer timeframe, about 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean, 80% of it is more than 800 meters deep, and roughly nine-tenths remains unexplored.

He concedes that low oil prices are having a greater impact on the North Sea and other regions of relatively high-cost production than, say, the shallow and benign waters of the Arabian Gulf. But when oil prices rebound—whenever that may be—tomorrow’s oil and gas lies in regions characterised by the “four d’s” – deep, distant, difficult and dangerous. Norwegian expertise will be in constant demand.

Bucking the trend
Coming from two separate fishing families, life partners Rita Christina Sævik and Espen Ervik, have developed a unique business model in sharp contrast to those of offshore vessel operators nearby in Fosnavåg on Norway’s west coast. The small tight-knit community in and around the coastal town was traditionally reliant on fishing but has become a centre for offshore innovation focused on the harsh environment of the North Sea.

Today, Aalesund, Fosnavåg and Ulsteinvik are key centres at the heart of the country’s west coast offshore cluster. The cluster includes OSV heavyweights such as Bourbon Offshore, Farstad, Havila, Olympic Shipping, Rem Offshore, Remøy Shipping and Solstad.

But the collapse in oil prices is having a dire impact on many companies’ operations. Although they believe the downturn is temporary, it means laying up boats and laying off seafarers. This is a major challenge in such an offshore-oriented community.

While more OSVs head for lay-up, however, Rita and Espen’s business is thriving. Their antecedents were fishing folk, and both had fishing in their blood. When Rita became MD of her father’s company, Kings Cross AS, in 2005, the pair put their heads together to develop a new business.

Eighteen months later, Ervik & Sævik was set up and work began on the design of an up-to-the-minute fishing vessel capable of working all year round, despite increasingly restrictive fishing quotas. Thus the Christina E took shape.

She is a fishing vessel with a unique selling point. When she’s not landing catches of blue whiting, capelin, herring and mackerel from some of the world’s roughest seas during about five months of the year, the dynamically positioned vessel is deployed on sophisticated offshore operations including seismic work, subsea installation and ROV surveys.

Designed by Vik & Sandvik, with input from SINTEF, equipment supplier MMC and Norwegian state energy firm Statoil, the Christina E was built in Denmark with support from Norway’s NOx Fund. The vessel incorporates latest fishing technologies which enable large volumes of fish to be caught and kept in optimal conditions on board to get the highest prices at auction.

October was the middle of the mackerel fishing season. “We are happy with the prices and the feedback from buyers is very positive regarding quality,” says Rita. But she explains that the ship’s economics would not stack up without working in the offshore sector for up to seven months each year.

Statoil is a repeat charterer, having taken the Christina E on hire in both 2012 and 2013, and for 19 days so far this year. For the rest of the offshore season this year, the vessel has been working for ORG Geophysical as she did exclusively in 2014.

So how do Fosnavåg’s OSV owners view the Ervik & Sævik operation?

“Fosnavåg is a little place and everybody knows each other,” Rita explains. “We have very good contact and a strong marine sector. Since we are a little company compared to the others, I don’t think they see me as a competitor.”

With a strong fishing heritage, it is no surprise that Rita and Espen are diligent about working conditions. Tommy Nielsen, for example, is one of two chefs head-hunted by Rita from fine restaurants. Nielsen himself is a chef and a sommelier.

“Usually, those who cook on board are called stewards,” says Rita. “We are proud to call them chefs.”

Fine food and good living conditions are popular with charterers’ personnel. “All the charterers are very satisfied with the ship and the crew. We have ROV people who have been on board five times and charterers like Statoil and ORG Geophysical take the ship several times,” Rita comments.

So will the Christina E have a sister?

“Our plan is to develop the company in either offshore (another ship) or in fishery (buy more quotas),” Rita explains. “This will depend on how the market develops. Do not say never about something!”

Change is in the air
In the current challenging offshore oil and gas sector, offshore support vessel owners are looking for every opportunity to keep their vessels working, even if it means converting them for other markets.

Ship Design FjellstrandA good example is the Platform Supply Vessel Vestland Cygnus, which is poised to find a new life in the offshore wind market. Delivered this past April by the Fjellstrand Shipyard in Norway, the Vestland Cygnus went to work on a time charter to Apache North Sea Ltd. for a firm 60 days, followed by 30 optional days for work in the U.K. sector of the North Sea.

Now, Norway’s Vestland Offshore says the Fjellstrand AS has been awarded a contract worth around NOK 150 million (about $18 million) to convert the Vestland Cygnus into a wind farm support vessel.

The PSV will be fitted with a 134-person accommodations module, a 100 tonne/40 m offshore crane and a new walkway system for boarding of wind turbines. Additionally 1.2 m sponsons will be added on either side of the vessel.

The converted vessel will have SPS (special purpose ship) class notation.

The design for the conversion is being supplied by Wärtsilä, which provided the original design for the vessel and also supplied a complete electric propulsion system based on the Wärtsilä Low Loss concept with four Wärtsilä 20 engines, as well as an integrated automation system.

“We have developed several concepts for wind farm service vessels, both for newbuilds and conversion projects, and our design is very suitable for this vessel’s new operational profile. We have also worked closely with the Fjellstrand yard for many years on numerous projects and the cooperation between our companies is excellent,” says Ove Wilhelmsen, Managing Director, Wärtsilä Ship Design, Norway.

“The new design will enable the transportation and accommodation of a high number of people. It is important that the vessel has very good stability, even in the most challenging sea and weather conditions, so that personnel can safely board rigs or wind mills. We are confident that the Wärtsilä design meets all our requirements,” says Hans Martin Gravdal, owner of Vestland Cygnus.

Following completion of the rebuild project by the shipyard, the Vestland Cygnus will transport service personnel to and from wind farms.

The conversion will be completed by June 2016.

  • News

Volvo Penta updates its largest marine diesel

Available in power ratings from 368 to 551 kW, the D16 is the largest marine diesel engine in Volvo Penta’s product portfolio, but remains a compact and flexible choice for a complete power package, a multi-engine application, diesel electric or hybrid solution.

Originally launched by the Volvo Group in 2004, Volvo Penta released the D16 for marine use in 2005 and, since then, more than 95,000 heavy duty D16 units have been produced. Now, Volvo Penta is updating its original unit to offer more features that include the ability for operators to use either of Volvo Penta’s proprietary monitoring and control systems (EVC or MCC) or the system of the operator’s choice — in which case the engine is delivered with an open CAN solution.

Open CAN interface enables integration with any ship automation system and any user interface. The benefit is an easier installation process for the shipyard, while customers will appreciate being able to customize the control system — a feature previously unavailable. By opening up and sharing data about the engine, OEMs can customize the auxiliary or genset engine’s interface, while still benefiting from all the features of a Volvo Penta engine.

To increase uptime, a 1,000-hour oil service interval is available — without the need for additional oil or extra filter arrangements.

The original D16 engine contained an 80 amp compact alternator, but the updated 110 amp alternator in the latest unit offers 40% increased capacity — even at low revs. The new alternator enables increased charge capacity and more onboard power.

Type-approved by DNV, the engine rubber mounts in the new D16 engine are designed to withstand a higher load. The new characteristics will increase onboard comfort — especially important in crew transfer vessels. In addition, other changes, such as a new exhaust clamp at the turbo outlet and new stud joints, are part of a wider package of design improvements intended to the engine even more robust.

The updated engine also includes a redesigned oil sump, which will make it easier for boat builders to fit a single or dual installation, ensuring the complete overall system takes up less room and is easier to install.

For those customers who want to order an engine with Volvo Penta’s electronic vessel control, the type-approved EVC system features defined control stations with priority settings and “transfer underway” procedures according to DNV requirements. To fulfill monitoring requirements, a seven-inch color screen display is complemented by an alarm-handling display, including an extended alarm log.

The EVC system also features manual engine sync to support complex maneuvers where full control of both engines is needed. For customers wanting to integrate with a ship system, for example, the Volvo Penta Information Gateway (IGW) is available.

The EVC’s top mount controls and display have all been updated to exceed the DNV location class for deck mounting, fulfilling IP67. This protects vessels with an exposed helm from water intrusion.

Tidewater reports a red ink quarter

For the same quarter last year, net earnings were $60.9 million, or $1.22 per common share, on revenues of $397.5 million.

The immediately preceding quarter ended June 30, 2015, had a net loss of $15.1 million, or $0.32 per common share, on revenues of $304.8 million.

Included in the net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 were:

  • $31.7 million ($31.6 million after-tax, or $0.67 per share) in non-cash asset impairment charges that resulted from impairment reviews undertaken during the September 2015 quarter.
  • A $7.6 million ($6.3 million after-tax, or $0.13 per share) restructuring charge related to severance and other termination costs resulting from right-sizing efforts during the September 2015 quarter.
  • $5.2 million ($5.2 million after-tax, or $0.11 per share) of foreign exchange losses which is included in Equity in net earnings/(losses) of unconsolidated companies and related to its Angola joint venture, Sonatide.

Income tax expense in the September and June quarters of fiscal 2016 largely reflect tax liabilities in certain jurisdictions that levy taxes on bases other than pre-tax profitability (so called “deemed profit” regimes.)

Included in the net loss for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 were the following:

  • $15.0 million ($14.0 million after-tax, or $0.30 per share) in non-cash asset impairment charges that resulted from impairment reviews undertaken during the June 2015 quarter, including write-offs of unreimbursed and/or potentially unrecoverable costs related to cancelled vessel construction contracts and a vessel construction project that is the subject of an on-going arbitration proceeding.
  • $10.2 million ($9.5 million after-tax, or $0.20 per share) of total foreign exchange losses, $6.1 million of which is included in Equity in net earnings/(losses) of unconsolidated companies and related to Angola joint venture, Sonatide.

Tidewater will hold a conference call to discuss September quarterly earnings on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Central time. Investors and interested parties may listen to the teleconference via telephone by calling 1-888-771-4371 if calling from the U.S. or Canada (1-847-585-4405 if calling from outside the U.S.) and ask for the “Tidewater” call just prior to the scheduled start. A replay of the conference call will be available beginning at 12:00 p.m. Central time on November 4, 2015, and will continue until 11:59 p.m. Central time on November 6, 2015. To hear the replay, call 1-888-843-7419 (1-630-652-3042 if calling from outside the U.S.). The conference call ID number is 40898911.

A simultaneous webcast of the conference call will be available online at the Tidewater Inc. website, (http://www.tdw.com). The online replay will be available until December 4, 2015.

COWAN’S VIEW

Cowan and Company analyst J.B. Lowe says that the quarterly report has “Modestly Negative Implications.”

Tidewater reported an operating loss per share of $0.28, versus Cowan’s estimate and a consensus loss of $0.02/sh.
“However, much of the loss compared to our estimate was tax driven; operating income of $15.5 million compared to our $15 million estimate, and adjusted EBITDA of $62 million was above our $60 million estimate,” says the Cowan analyst.

Tidewater’s loss from continuing operations of $0.28 compared with Cowan’s and a consensus loss of $0.02/sh. Results exclude a $0.67/sh non-cash impairment charge, a $0.13/sh restructuring charge, $0.11/sh in FX losses and a $0.13/sh loss on asset dispositions. Higher-than-expected taxes negatively affected the quarter by $0.28/sh compared to estimate, meaning the company would have broken even at our Cowan’s tax rate expectation.

The company exceeded  Cowan’s estimates on an operating basis, with operating income of $15.5 million coming in ahead of the $15 million estimate. Better-than-expected results were driven by lower operating costs and G&A expense than forecast, more than offsetting the top-line miss.

Total revenues of $272 million were short of Cowan’s $287mm estimate, while vessel revenues of $264 million were behind Cowan’s $278 milion forecast and below the average $275 million in revenues expected on the F1Q16 conference call. The relative underperformance was driven by weakness in the Americas region, partially offset by higher-than expected results in the Asia/Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa/Europe regions.

Vessel operating costs of $159 million were below Cowan’s $170 million forecast. Repair and maintenance costs fell sequentially as expected from $37.3 million in F1Q16 to $28.5 million (versus Cowan’s expectation of $34.7million).

Crew costs of $84 million were below Cowan’s  $86 million forecast, although this was partially offset by higher fuel costs of $17 million. Vessel cash operating margin of 40% exceeded Cowan’s 39% estimate and fell within the guidance range of 36-40%. G&A expense of $37 million was well below our $43 millionexpectation, offset by higher-than-forecast DD&A expense of $46 million (vs our $45 mm estimate).

The company-wide average dayrate of $16,039/d was 5% below Cowan’s $16,946/d forecast. Deepwater dayrates of $24,535/d were short of Cowan’s $26,067/d estimate while TS/S rates of $13,689/d were in-line Cowan’s $13,662/d forecast. Worldwide utilization of 65.7% matched Cowan’s 65.8% estimate, driven largely by the ‘Other’ vessel segment as deepwater (63%) and TS/S (67%) utilization were below or in-line with Cowan’s forecasts of 68.3% and 66.5%.

Americas revenue of $89.2 million “fell well short of our $106.7 million forecast, driven largely by lower dayrates ($20,725/d vs our $22,511/d estimate) and by lower utilization (59.7% vs our 66.1% estimate).”

MORE

  • News

Concept LNG fueled mega box ship would be COGAS electric

The partners in the study — LNG containment system specialist GTT, containership operator CMA CGM (and its subsidiary CMA Ships) and classification society DNV GL — say the concept that has the potential to offer a more efficient, more flexible and greener box ship design than current 20,000 TEU two-stroke diesel engine driven ultra large container vessels.

They have dubbed the vessel the “Piston Engine Room Free Efficient Containership” (PERFECt).

Essentially, the concept ship takes advantage of the flexibility of electric drive to use space previously occupied by the main to carry cargo, more than offsetting the extra volume required by the LNG fuel tanks in comparison with conventional HFO tanks.

A comprehensive analysis with the DNV GL COSSMOS tool simulated components of the power production and propulsion system to analyze the COGAS system, making it possible to get detailed data for the calculation of the overall fuel efficiency for a complete round voyage.

Using a global FEM analysis, the project partners also evaluated the impact of the changes that were made to the general arrangement.

The two 10,960 cu.m LNG fuel tanks are located below the deck house, giving the vessel enough fuel capacity for an Asia/Europe round trip.

With the gas and steam turbines integrated at deck level within the same deck house as the tanks, space normally occupied by the conventional engine room can be used to increase cargo capacity significantly.

The dissociation of electric power generation from electric propulsion allows the electric power plant to be moved away from the main propulsion system, giving a great deal of flexibility. In fact, say the partners “an engine room is not needed any more.”

The three electric main motors, which are arranged on one common shaft, can be run fully independently of each other providing increased redundancy and reliability and a high level of safety.

With gas turbine-driven power production utilizing a very clean fuel as well as electric propulsion, the ship’s machinery systems will be simplified and more robust. This approach is also expected to lead to new maintenance strategies, already common practice in aviation, that would enable shipping companies to reduce the ship’s engine crew and save costs.

The study also suggests that optimizing the power plant through minimizing the steam turbine size, reducing power capacities, condenser cooling, and using a two-stage pressure steam turbine and steam generator will increase the system’s efficiency further. The next phase of the study aims to optimize the propulsion system and ship design to attain even greater efficiency and increased cargo capacity.

THE PRICE TAG

As part of the analysis, costs for additional and reduced systems to the base case ship (CMA CGM’s 20,000 TEU Marco Polo) were considered.Additional costs included:
ƒƒ

  • membrane tanks,
  • gas and steam turbines,
  • fuel gas handling, and
  • structural reinforcements (needed as there is no aft engine casing).

Costs that could be eliminated or reduced in compared to the two-stroke engine system included:ƒƒ

  • scrubber, which is eliminated,
  • cooling system capacity, which is reduced and the system simplified, and
  • ƒƒHFO treatment or tank heating, which is not needed.

At the end, the CAPEX (capital expenditure) for the COGAS ship are seen as being to be 20% to 24% above those for a conventionally-fueled vessel.

The OPEX (operating expenditure) costs largely depend on the difference in fuel price, the additional income related to the additional containers which can be transported and the savings related to a possibly higher system efficiency.

On the basis of the current gas price in Europe, which is nearly the same as the HFO price a business case in comparison with a two stroke ship using HFO plus scrubber as a reference therefore “needs compensation either by a larger difference between gas and LNG price or by additional benefits from efficiency improvement and additional revenue from additional container slots.”

Still, the partners say that the results of the feasibility study, including the CAPEX and OPEX calculations, encourage them to plan a more detailed evaluation of the overall system in a follow-up project.

MORE

Perfect GA

Damen hands over RoPax ferry to Canadian customer

 

Launched at the end of March by Damen Shipyards Galati in Romania the vessel will start services from Fogo Island and Change Islands before the end of November.

MV Veteran was delivered by the shipbuilder on time and within budget.MV Veteran is the first of a two-vessel contract. Its design results from a partnership between Fleetway of Canada and Denmark’s Knud E. Hansen.

Several Canadian companies have provided services, rangingrom electrical equipment to fire-fighting systems, for the MV Veteran and its sister ship, the MV Legionnaire, which is scheduled for delivery from Galati in the spring of 2016 and will operate on the busy short-haul route from Portugal Cove to Bell Island.

The Veteran will replace the MV Earl Windsor built in 1975. The Legionnaire will replace the MV Beaumont Hamel built in 1985.

Both vessels are part of a large “lifeline” vessel replacement program being undertaken by the Provincial Government to modernize its fleet, which annually transports over 900,000 passengers, 400,000 vehicles and 20,000 tonnes of freight with more than 50,000 arrivals and departures.

As the region in which they operate is located near the Arctic, the vessels have to maneuver in drifting ice.

According to Damen Manager North America Jan van Hogerwou, the two new ferries can handle the impact of 40 cm-thick floating ice at 4 knots.

“Their rudders, hull and propellers have been strengthened and are outfitted with extra plate thickness for heavy winter conditions,” he says.

Damen Ferries Product Director Henk Grunstra says: “The highest certificate available for ferries is the Ice Class 1A Super certificate. These diesel-electric propelled vessels also have redundant systems. The bridge is ergonomically designed and has optimal working space for efficient and safe operation. The modern, low maintenance interior was designed by an internationally recognized designer. The shift crew lives on board the ship in 15 single crew cabins.”

A Canadian service and support hub for these vessels is being established. A certified Damen maintenance center will be located in the capital of the Newfoundland and Labrador region, St. John’s. An agreement with a local Newfoundland-based company is in place and its employees are currently being trained at Damen Shipyards Galati.

  • News

NTSB issues new update on El Faro investigation

On February 13, 2015, El Faro successfully completed the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) class and statutory surveys, meeting all rules and regulations as applicable. All deficiencies identified were rectified prior to completion of the surveys. None of the deficiencies were associated with El Faro’s main propulsion systems.

The annual inspection of El Faro, required by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), was completed by qualified USCG inspectors in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 6, 2015.

In June 2015, a qualified ABS surveyor examined and tested the main, auxiliary and emergency systems as part of the continuous machinery survey program and found them to be satisfactory.

TOTE told investigators that El Faro was scheduled to be removed from the route between Jacksonville and San Juan and redeployed to the U.S. West Coast where it would operate between Washington State and Alaska. In August, in order to prepare for this operational change, TOTE began to make modifications to the vessel while underway under the supervision of an additional chief engineer. Work on these modifications was performed by welders and machinists over many voyages, including during the accident voyage.

On September 11, 2015, TOTE received permission from the Coast Guard to shut down one of the ship’s two boilers so it could be inspected by an independent boiler service company during a voyage between San Juan and Jacksonville. As a result of the inspection, the boiler service company recommended service to both boilers during an upcoming drydock period that had already been scheduled for November 6, 2015. The boiler was returned to service following the inspection.
Interviews of relief crew and company management indicated that onboard safety drills were consistently conducted on a weekly basis. These included lifeboat drills for all crewmembers to ensure that all on board understood their responsibilities in an emergency.

Investigators interviewed two pilots that had guided El Faro in and out of the Port of Jacksonville; both reported that the vessel handled similarly to other vessels of its size and type.

The vessel’s terminal manager reported that El Faro met stability criteria when it left Jacksonville.The company’s procedures called for some cargo on the ship to be “double lashed” regardless of the weather expected to be encountered during the voyage. The vessel stevedores reported that prior to El Faro’s departure on the accident voyage, the cargo was secured in accordance with those procedures.

Before El Faro departed Jacksonville, Tropical Storm Joaquin was predicted to become a hurricane and a marine hurricane warning was issued by the National Hurricane Center’s Advisory #8 at 5:00 pm EDT on Sept. 29.

At about 8:15 pm EDT on Sept. 29, El Faro departed Jacksonville, Fla., for San Juan, Puerto Rico.

At 1:12 pm EDT on Sept. 30, the captain emailed a company safety official that he intended to take a route south of the predicted path of the hurricane and would pass about 65 miles from its center.

In an advisory issued at 2:00 am EDT on Oct. 1, the National Hurricane Center predicted seas of 30 feet with sustained winds of 64 knots (74 mph), increasing to 105 knots (121 mph) as the El Faro approached the wall of the eye of the hurricane.

In a recorded satellite phone call to the company’s emergency call center at 7:00 am EDT, the captain told the call center operator that he had a marine emergency. He reported that there was a hull breach, a scuttle had blown open, and that there was water in hold number 3. He also said that the ship had lost its main propulsion unit and the engineers could not get it going. The operator then connected the captain with the Designated Person Ashore (DPA). The DPA told investigators that the captain had communicated similar information to him that was provided to the call center operator, and also that the captain had estimated the height of the seas that El Faro was encountering to be 10 to 12 feet.

The USCG received electronic distress alerts from three separate sources on El Faro: the Ship’s Security Alert System (SSAS), the Inmarsat-C Alert, and the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB).

According to electronic alert system data sent by the vessel at 7:17 am EDT on Oct. 1, its last reported position was about 20 miles from the edge of the eye of the hurricane.

The USCG did not have direct voice communications with El Faro, only electronic distress alerts.

The NTSB investigators that traveled to Florida have returned to continue work on the investigation from NTSB headquarters in Washington.

The NTSB contracted with the U.S. Navy to locate the ship, document the wreckage on the sea floor and recover the voyage data recorder.

The USNS Apache, a fleet ocean tug, was outfitted with specialized equipment for this mission, and departed Little Creek, Virginia, at about 4:30 pm EDT on October 19. In addition to the Navy crew, the NTSB investigator-in-Charge, Tom Roth-Roffy, is on Apache with representatives from the USCG, TOTE and ABS, all parties to the NTSB investigation.

The Apache is estimated to arrive at the last known position of El Faro on Saturday, October 24, to begin the search for the ship and to recover the voyage data recorder. Once the search operation begins, it is expected to take at least two weeks.

The length of the operation will depend on the circumstances encountered.Updates on the search for the vessel and the accident investigation will be issued as circumstances warrant.

Safety: The Unseen Killer

 

A shift in the approach to safety management of enclosed spaces on board ships is needed. Fifteen years ago, while working as an independent surveyor, I was carrying out a condition survey on board a bulk carrier. The scope of the survey included testing the emergency generator, located in the steering flat and accessed by an inclined ladder.

Accompanied by the superintendent and the chief engineer, we had no sooner reached the bottom of the space when the chief engineer urgently ordered us all out. By the time we had exited the space, within seconds, we were all in a state of dizziness and confusion, compounded by our inability to comprehend what had just occurred. Further investigation revealed that Freon gas had leaked from refrigeration machinery located in the steering flat and being heavier than air, had migrated into the emergency generator space, displacing breathable air. It was a lucky escape. Victims of asphyxiation in enclosed spaces deficient in oxygen will normally receive no such warning that anything is wrong or have the ability to quickly escape.

Should we have been aware that this emergency generator space, not being enclosed in the usually perceived sense of the word, was potentially dangerous for entry? Absolutely.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) currently defines an enclosed space as having any of the following characteristics:

  1. Limited openings for entry and exit;
  2. Inadequate ventilation; and
  3. Is not designed for continuous worker occupancy, and includes, but is not limited to, cargo spaces, double bottoms, fuel tanks, ballast tanks, cargo pump-rooms, cargo compressor rooms, cofferdams, chain lockers, void spaces, duct keels, inter-barrier spaces, boilers, engine crankcases, engine scavenge air receivers, sewage tanks, and adjacent connected spaces. This list is not exhaustive and a list should be produced on a ship-by-ship basis to identify enclosed spaces.”

Most could be forgiven for not considering our generator space to fall within this definition, although it was clearly proven to present a danger in a particular circumstance.

Another very common example of confusion over what actually constitutes an “enclosed space” is the inconsistent perception of the dangers presented by CO2 fixed fire extinguishing system cylinder storage rooms. A leak in the system may accumulate in the space and displace breathable air if not thoroughly ventilated.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) rooms are frequently not identified as enclosed spaces on board and not provided with appropriate warning signs at the space access. Crew members may easily fail to appreciate that a CO2 room should properly be included within the aforementioned definition of an enclosed space.

No atmosphere hazard warning notice
The IMO list of enclosed spaces is not exhaustive, it is therefore important that ship managers and crew apply a wide interpretation as to what spaces on board each vessel could potentially be deficient in oxygen, and/or contain flammable and/or toxic gases or vapours, therefore requiring safety precautions to be observed prior to entry.

The dangers associated with enclosed spaces are well known yet deaths continue to occur.

Part of the issue may be misconceptions as to what spaces are or may become dangerous, and how they are identified. At present, there is no industry standard for the design and siting of warning notices and symbols that may be universally understood by ship and shore personnel. Indeed, on many ships, no attempt is made to provide any such labelling at points of access.

Cargo hold access – No warning notices
Warning notices alone will not overcome the problem as otherwise professional and well trained seafarers continue to enter enclosed spaces. In May last year, three crew members on board a cargo ship lost their lives after entering a cargo hold loaded with sawn timber, a cargo known to cause oxygen depletion.

Another part of the solution must also lie in improved levels of education and training of both ship and shore personnel. Reference is made to IMO Resolution A.1050(27) “Revised Recommendations For Entering Enclosed Spaces Aboard Ships” adopted in 2011. These recommendations provide, inter alia, that shipowners must adopt a comprehensive safety strategy to prevent accidents on entry to enclosed spaces, and that procedures for enclosed space entry are included among the key shipboard operations concerning safety of personnel and the ship. The recommendations also provide that no person should open or enter an enclosed space unless authorized by the master or the nominated responsible person, and unless the appropriate safety precautions laid down for the particular ship have been followed.

Despite the training requirements included in the above revised recommendations, IMO has recognized that more needs to be done to respond to the continuing loss of life from personnel entering shipboard enclosed spaces. This has taken the form of amendments to SOLAS regulation III/19 “Emergency training and drills”, which entered into force on January 1, 2015, and requires that enclosed space entry and rescue drills are to be conducted at two month intervals. The amendments include the following:

“3.6 Enclosed space entry and rescue drills

3.6.1 Enclosed space entry and rescue drills should be planned and conducted in a safe manner, taking into account, as appropriate, the guidance provided in the recommendations developed by the Organization [i.e. Resolution A.1050(27)] .

3.6.2 Each enclosed space entry and rescue drill shall include:

.1 checking and use of personal protective equipment required for entry;

.2 checking and use of communication equipment and procedures;

.3 checking and use of instruments for measuring the atmosphere in enclosed spaces;

.4 checking and use of rescue equipment and procedures; and

.5 instructions in first aid and resuscitation techniques.

4.2 Every crew member shall be given instructions which shall include but not necessarily be limited to:

.5 risks associated with enclosed spaces and on board procedures for safe entry into such spaces which should take into account, as appropriate, the guidance provided in recommendations developed by the Organization.

In addition to these welcome changes, the IMO has recently seen fit to rectify the anomaly that until now, no industry wide requirements have been in place, requiring all vessels to carry atmosphere testing instruments.

For all of this to be effective, it is necessary that ship staff, with the support of shore management, perform mandatory drills, training and actual entry procedures with a dedication and seriousness that reflects the dangers that attend enclosed space entry. A Permit to Work must be fully completed and signed off at the site of the task so that it is contemporary and reflects the actual hazard and safety needs of the operation. All too often, On every occasion before carrying out a job, pre-work meetings or “tool box talks” need to be arranged to identify who does what, the tools needed to identify the risks involved and what to do if something goes wrong.

Drills and training should be properly planned and be used as an opportunity to assess the challenges of rescue from the variously identified enclosed spaces on board. Training should also emphasize to crew the importance of raising the alarm when persons are found to be in difficulty within an enclosed space, and that any rescue is properly coordinated in accordance with practiced procedures.

Comprehensive record keeping and interactive post drill de-briefs will assist in identifying any weaknesses in procedures and promote crew ownership of the training program.

Last but not least, a zero tolerance culture to unplanned and unprepared entry into any enclosed space requires to be rigorously enforced and ingrained into all personnel, on board and ashore.

—By David Nichol, Risk Assessor, UK P&I Club

  • News

Survey shows shipowners still watching the purse strings

Though there were variations in different sizes and types of ships, industry wide all categories of expenditure were down on those for the previous 12-month period.

“This is the third successive year-on-year reduction in overall operating cost,” says Moore Stephens partner Richard Greiner. “This comes as something of a surprise, and is contrary to earlier forecasts. Shipping is clearly watching the pennies, and it may also be the case that more competitive pricing for goods and services has had a part to play in holding down expenditure. Beyond that, as always, the impact of exchange rate changes cannot be determined readily.

“By far the biggest reduction in operating costs, for example, was seen this time in the Stores category. This can be largely explained by the knock-on effect which the fall in oil prices has had on lube oil costs. Such ‘benefits’ do not come often to any industry, and are usually not without a downside, as has been the case in shipping.

“Crew costs were down, albeit marginally, for the first time in recent memory. This could be an indication of a higher level of idle tonnage during the period under review, but is nevertheless welcome news for an industry which has seen crew cost increases of more than 20% at their peak.

“Expenditure on repairs and maintenance was also marginally down on 2013, possibly attributable in part to weak steel prices and in part to the fact that poor freight rates arguably do not encourage owners and operators to engage in anything but the most essential repairs and maintenance. It is to be hoped that there is not a future price to be paid in this respect in terms of either safety or performance.

“The bill for insurance coverage was also down, which will come as little or no surprise in view of the high level of competition in the insurance market, which is arguably even fiercer than that in the shipping industry.

“A third successive annual fall in operating costs must be good news for an industry already facing serious financial challenges and preparing to meet still more. But a bigger-picture view provides an insight into just how much operating costs have increased in recent years. OpCost is now in its fifteenth year of publication. At year-end 2001, the average daily operating cost for a Panamax Bulk Carrier was $3,565. In 2014, it was $6,046. For a Handysize Product Tanker, the comparable figures were $4,164 and $7,931

.”The challenge for shipping is how to build the cost of operation into freight rates in a way which allows for a reasonable profit margin in an industry which is driven by competition and characterized by overtonnaging. Given that, over the next few years, annual seaborne trade is projected to grow at a reasonable rate, and that the cost of regulatory compliance is likely to increase significantly, one would expect operating costs to rise over the same period. Two things are certain. Firstly, the business of operating ships will remain a costly undertaking. Secondly, the impetus for higher freight rates will not come from the shipping industry’s customers.”

The 2015 edition of OpCost is available online. Running cost information is obtained on a confidential basis from clients of Moore Stephens, and from other shipowners and ship managers who submit data for inclusion. OpCost 2015 is available free to owners who submit their data for inclusion. Alternately, it can be purchased.

MORE